Images At Quality: .1, .2, .4, .6, .8, 1.0

[GxMew]

I did an image test and this is what I got...if you want HQ image go to: http://gxmew.deviantart.com/art/Triangles-Can-Be-Art-134513560

[old_blaggard]

Good test. It's interesting how the detail of the clouds seems to top off at about .6, but the lighting is very noticeably improved all the way up to a detail of 1.

[Oshyan]

Render times for each would be helpful too, if you have them.

- Oshyan

[GxMew]

.1 = 28 Seconds
.2 = 57 Seconds
.4 = 2:42 Seconds
.6 = 4:54 Seconds
.8 = 7:37 Seconds
1.0 = 11:12 Seconds

[mt_sabao]

[GxMew]

Very nice graph but the outlier would be 1 why is that?

(sorry, I edited your post accidentally! I've put it back now! - Matt)

[Matt]

I don't think it should be treated as an outlier.

[rcallicotte]

Thanks for showing this.  Good illustration.

[PG]

There is quite a difference between 0.8 and 1.0 though. The latter gives the sun much more power which affects the rest of the scene, the atmosphere is much lighter and the godrays are more visible than in the former.

Edit: Also, maybe the whole Render detail maximum of 1.0 should be removed from the free version restrictions on the website as anything higher than that seems to make no visible difference to the quality, being that the removal of this was one of the main reasons I paid £200 for it, it doesn't exactly live up to expectations

[FrankB]

no PG, that really depends on the scene. This render has a focus on sky, which does not need / benefit from render detail 1, but other scenes with small scale detail and vegetation certainly do.

[PG]

So what does it actually effect then? The number of microtriangles used to render the image?

[FrankB]

I cannot specify that in technical terms, but my own render results tell me that.
If that test were to be repeated with a small scale displaced terrain, also with shadow areas, you would see what I mean.
Also, remember that for example the GI setting is "relative detail", and it's relative to the master detail setting.
This is also the reason why in this sky render, you see that the shadow side of clouds is brighter at detail 1, compared to detail 0.8.

However, these days I rarely use detail 1, because I can get almost equal, subjective render quality with detail 0.8-0.9
Another reason is that I'm not exactly patient so these numbers seem just the right compromise for me personally.

Lastly, when you want decent underwater detail, you even need to increase to beyond detail 1. So you're not going to see many scenes with visibleunderwater terrain from me, that's for sure

Cheers,
Frank